1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2...

1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant on May 29, 2014 is either disputing parties or may be recognized by the statement in Gap evidence No. 1.

2. Determination of the Claimant

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant money was a loan and sought the return thereof. The Defendant asserted that the instant money was not the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant, but was paid to the Nonparty Company through the Defendant through the Defendant in the process of concluding a contract with D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and that it was only delivered by the Defendant.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the relevant legal principles as to the fact that money was received, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserts that the loan was lent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015). In a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the fact that money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract for consumption and loan has to be proved by the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, etc.). C.

Judgment

With respect to whether the remitted money of this case was leased to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize it in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole as a whole in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including the serial number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it is difficult to regard the remitted money of this case as a loan.

① Although the Plaintiff remitted the instant money to the Defendant on May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff becomes due and payable from the Defendant.